Disputatio Formulae:Videdis

Merge?

I guess so. I never used {{Pro pagina discretiva vide}} because I couldn't see the point in a formula that takes just as long to type as the words you require! The experimental formulae I've just created, {{disp}} and {{dis}}, are very easy to type, produce a brief message (unlike {{fn|disambig}} and {{alius}}) and -- at Hendricus' suggestion -- have a background that distinguishes them visibly from the body of the article. I thought that was a good idea. What do others think? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 14:48, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with redirecting {{pro pagina discretiva vide}} to {{disp}} (but why is this template called disp?).

I fear that {{dis}} might get confused with ordinary "read more" links like {{vide-etiam}} and might get added in the middle or in the end of articles, which is apparently not your intention. Perhaps the text appearing in this template could make it clearer that this template should only be used for linking to homonymes? --UV 22:25, 24 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

I was away for a few days and have only just seen this! Yes, good point, I have now revised the text in {{dis}} to make clear that it points to an article about a homonym. I will add comments at the formula pages to explain these formulae are for use only at the head of articles.

Perhaps I should move these two formulae to {{videhom}} (for "Vide etiam paginam homonymam") and {{videdis}} for "Vide etiam paginam discretivam"). Would that work? If that makes sense and no one objects, I could then do the necessary merging. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 10:03, 30 Octobris 2007 (UTC)

Perfect! --UV 00:09, 31 Octobris 2007 (UTC)